Honest answers: Would you be more open-minded about Drake Maye if he wasn't #10 from North Carolina?

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

I disagree those have been “proven correct”. The Fields we saw after the injury showed much improved field vision and consistently kept his eyes downfield when scrambling. He went from a guy that didn’t play under control to a guy who looked in complete command of the offense. I don’t think this is debatable?
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:58 am I disagree those have been “proven correct”. The Fields we saw after the injury showed much improved field vision and consistently kept his eyes downfield when scrambling. He went from a guy that didn’t play under control to a guy who looked in complete command of the offense. I don’t think this is debatable?
To me what isn’t debatable is that JF1 is not liability. We are not losing games because of him nor are we winning games in spite of him.

When I actually watch the games, novel idea, I see a guy in JF1 that can make any throw, true dual threat, can run for his life and has had some success despite a poor supporting cast and idiotic coaching.

The #1 overall pick in the draft is the biggest resource a team can get to improve itself. I think it should be used on the biggest weakness.

How is our biggest weakness QB?

Is JF1 a bigger problem than Whitehair snapping the ball into the stands? DJ Moore being the only good WR? Only having one pass rusher on the roster?

No, he’s not.

We aren’t one player away from fixing this team. We’re 3 / 4 / 5 players away.

That’s why I don’t care about replacing the QB. It’s nowhere near our biggest problem.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6645
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 636 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:58 am I disagree those have been “proven correct”. The Fields we saw after the injury showed much improved field vision and consistently kept his eyes downfield when scrambling. He went from a guy that didn’t play under control to a guy who looked in complete command of the offense. I don’t think this is debatable?
Without debating whether those problems are "all fixed now", there certainly can't be any debate that he had those problems for at least 2.5 years after college, so clearly the assessment that those things were issues at the time of drafting was correct.


The starting point for the conversation, my incredulity, and disagreement, recall was:
TheWorldBreaker wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 5:22 pm He doesn’t really do anything better than Fields did in college.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

Moriarty wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:47 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:58 am I disagree those have been “proven correct”. The Fields we saw after the injury showed much improved field vision and consistently kept his eyes downfield when scrambling. He went from a guy that didn’t play under control to a guy who looked in complete command of the offense. I don’t think this is debatable?
Without debating whether those problems are "all fixed now", there certainly can't be any debate that he had those problems for at least 2.5 years after college, so clearly the assessment that those things were issues at the time of drafting was correct.
Agree, he was a QB that needed development for sure. I just like to keep guys that we spent 3 years getting to a point where they are good players instead of starting over with a new one, who will be flawed no matter what. Every "generational talent" QB that's come along since Aikman has struggled as a rookie - the Stroud success is really an outlier. And I think we are a dangerous team next year, I'm not wanting to toss that away developing a new guy.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 510 times
Been thanked: 829 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:52 am
Agree, he was a QB that needed development for sure. I just like to keep guys that we spent 3 years getting to a point where they are good players instead of starting over with a new one, who will be flawed no matter what. Every "generational talent" QB that's come along since Aikman has struggled as a rookie - the Stroud success is really an outlier. And I think we are a dangerous team next year, I'm not wanting to toss that away developing a new guy.
It's honestly kind of funny that there's 2 Justin Fields holdouts left, you and TMP, and he's been arguing that this team is shit and we shouldnt bring a rookie qb into it, and you're arguing that this team is too good to bring a rookie qb into.

Just an observation.
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:58 am to a guy who looked in complete command of the offense. I don’t think this is debatable?
Complete command? Geez.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:52 am
Moriarty wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:47 am

Without debating whether those problems are "all fixed now", there certainly can't be any debate that he had those problems for at least 2.5 years after college, so clearly the assessment that those things were issues at the time of drafting was correct.
Agree, he was a QB that needed development for sure. I just like to keep guys that we spent 3 years getting to a point where they are good players instead of starting over with a new one, who will be flawed no matter what. Every "generational talent" QB that's come along since Aikman has struggled as a rookie - the Stroud success is really an outlier. And I think we are a dangerous team next year, I'm not wanting to toss that away developing a new guy.
Herbert and Burrow were both solid as Rookies. Dak was good as a Rookie. Lots and lots of examples. It's not that tough to be better than High 20s in Completion Percentage, Yards, etc (pretty much any passing category)

And that's using Fields Year 3 as a baseline - not even his Rookie Year.

Also - the Pro Fields crowd was never big on admitting he needed a good amount of work - More people came to that conclusion as we were seeing similar issues in Year 3 as we did on Day 1. But very few noted that he kind of was a project.

But the general consensus here - was that he should play from Day 1 as a Rookie - He was ready - This test shows that he's going to know the whole Playbook by Year 1, "Let the Ferrari Out of the Garage", anyone who thinks there are holes in his game might just be Racist, etc etc

The number of people saying he has a big developmental curve - markedly bigger than most QBs (though more physically talents than most as well) - was exceedingly small at the outset.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:16 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:52 am
Agree, he was a QB that needed development for sure. I just like to keep guys that we spent 3 years getting to a point where they are good players instead of starting over with a new one, who will be flawed no matter what. Every "generational talent" QB that's come along since Aikman has struggled as a rookie - the Stroud success is really an outlier. And I think we are a dangerous team next year, I'm not wanting to toss that away developing a new guy.
It's honestly kind of funny that there's 2 Justin Fields holdouts left, you and TMP, and he's been arguing that this team is shit and we shouldnt bring a rookie qb into it, and you're arguing that this team is too good to bring a rookie qb into.

Just an observation.
I don't think this is true. When we last posted a poll about what we wanted the team to do, the majority of responders said they wanted to keep Fields and trade down. Do we need to run another poll, do you think that's changed?
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 12:10 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:16 am

It's honestly kind of funny that there's 2 Justin Fields holdouts left, you and TMP, and he's been arguing that this team is shit and we shouldnt bring a rookie qb into it, and you're arguing that this team is too good to bring a rookie qb into.

Just an observation.
I don't think this is true. When we last posted a poll about what we wanted the team to do, the majority of responders said they wanted to keep Fields and trade down. Do we need to run another poll, do you think that's changed?
I'm still technically a holdout, but I understand the realities of the situation. I also disagree that Fields was in complete command of the offense. I would say he was operating it at an improved level, but complete command is a pretty big stretch.

I do think a new poll would shift a little towards the Bears drafting Williams - based more on what people think the Bears WILL do instead of maybe what folks would prefer. I'm fairly convinced that the Bears will draft Williams and trade Fields, but that's not really my preference.
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 3692
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 572 times
Been thanked: 529 times

wab wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 1:04 pm
dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 12:10 pm

I don't think this is true. When we last posted a poll about what we wanted the team to do, the majority of responders said they wanted to keep Fields and trade down. Do we need to run another poll, do you think that's changed?
I'm still technically a holdout, but I understand the realities of the situation. I also disagree that Fields was in complete command of the offense. I would say he was operating it at an improved level, but complete command is a pretty big stretch.

I do think a new poll would shift a little towards the Bears drafting Williams - based more on what people think the Bears WILL do instead of maybe what folks would prefer. I'm fairly convinced that the Bears will draft Williams and trade Fields, but that's not really my preference.
Same here. All along I've been what I would like to see happen versus what I think will happen.

I understand why the Bears probable decision to move on from Justin Fields is an amalgam of 1) legitimate financial considerations; 2) rare opportunity provided by owning Carolina's pick; 3) Fields remaining a work in progress as a pocket passer (though still improving, in my view); and 4) Fields' injury history during his three years in the league.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

wab wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 1:04 pm
dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 12:10 pm

I don't think this is true. When we last posted a poll about what we wanted the team to do, the majority of responders said they wanted to keep Fields and trade down. Do we need to run another poll, do you think that's changed?
I'm still technically a holdout, but I understand the realities of the situation. I also disagree that Fields was in complete command of the offense. I would say he was operating it at an improved level, but complete command is a pretty big stretch.

I do think a new poll would shift a little towards the Bears drafting Williams - based more on what people think the Bears WILL do instead of maybe what folks would prefer. I'm fairly convinced that the Bears will draft Williams and trade Fields, but that's not really my preference.
I think you're probably right. A lot of people but all their eggs in the GB game and that went poorly, and now the draft hype machine is getting going so that will pull even more. Also, don't forget DD Rusty, he's never wavered from Team Justin! Several others also, Hurricane, Pus (I think) come immediately to mind.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:16 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:52 am
Agree, he was a QB that needed development for sure. I just like to keep guys that we spent 3 years getting to a point where they are good players instead of starting over with a new one, who will be flawed no matter what. Every "generational talent" QB that's come along since Aikman has struggled as a rookie - the Stroud success is really an outlier. And I think we are a dangerous team next year, I'm not wanting to toss that away developing a new guy.
It's honestly kind of funny that there's 2 Justin Fields holdouts left, you and TMP, and he's been arguing that this team is shit and we shouldnt bring a rookie qb into it, and you're arguing that this team is too good to bring a rookie qb into.

Just an observation.
Ok fine.

@dplank is all I need because we’re the ones that are right.

Brothers to the end is fine by me. I’ll be the last one to leave that battlefield. I don’t give a shit if JF1 loves his mother-in-law and hates PlayStation. I’m not leaving him.

By all means, somebody, anybody, make the case that Caleb Williams is a surer thing or more impactful thing than a repeat of a trade that yields a star player, two firsts and two seconds. I could use a good laugh.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 24888
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 793 times

My main desire is for if the Bears draft a QB in the top 3 and trade Fields that this QB display immediate and obvious improvement at the position compared to Fields. I want this QB to demonstrate to me right away traits and habits that make me say, "holy shit" in his first season. Not to say there needs to be perfection or something unreasonable, but decision-making, timing, progressions, footwork, harmony within the offensive scheme, leadership, etc - show me that while Fields was good at all those things, this elite draft pick is or will be a true star.
"None of us are in the board room, locker room, or on the sideline, so in a way, we don't know shit."
- Otis Day
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

Bro - I love my mother in law and I'm firmly an XBOX guy. We good?
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:56 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 11:16 am

It's honestly kind of funny that there's 2 Justin Fields holdouts left, you and TMP, and he's been arguing that this team is shit and we shouldnt bring a rookie qb into it, and you're arguing that this team is too good to bring a rookie qb into.

Just an observation.
Ok fine.

@dplank is all I need because we’re the ones that are right.

Brothers to the end is fine by me. I’ll be the last one to leave that battlefield. I don’t give a shit if JF1 loves his mother-in-law and hates PlayStation. I’m not leaving him.

By all means, somebody, anybody, make the case that Caleb Williams is a surer thing or more impactful thing than a repeat of a trade that yields a star player, two firsts and two seconds. I could use a good laugh.
Live shot of Dplank and TMP

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:00 pm Bro - I love my mother in law and I'm firmly an XBOX guy. We good?
Solid.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
TheWorldBreaker
MVP
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:57 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Moriarty wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:53 am
TheWorldBreaker wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:24 pm

Here’s what they said about Fields:

Big-armed passer with the ability to make all the throws. Patient in the pocket, keeps his eyes downfield, and takes the safe underneath outlet if nothing else is available. Sells ball fakes, remains poised under the rush, and buys as much time as necessary for receivers. Elusive, keeps plays alive, and easily gets outside the box to elude pass rushers and make the throw on the move.

Possesses a next-level arm, puts speed on all his throws, and loses nothing passing on the move. Displays a sense of timing, drives the deep throw, and delivers some outstanding long passes. Throws the ball 50+ yards with speed and spin, perfectly placing it in the receiver’s hands. Legitimate threat running the ball, showing the ability to pick up yardage with his legs. Tough and plays while injured.


Kind of similar.
Well, it is somewhat similar if you go by that particular review. But don't you have trouble not convulsing with laughter at some of their evaulations?



Let's take out all things that everyone has no trouble agreeing with - strong arm, athletic & elusive, makes plays off-schedule, tough.
That leaves
Patient in the pocket, keeps his eyes downfield, and takes the safe underneath outlet if nothing else is available. Sells ball fakes, remains poised under the rush, and buys as much time as necessary for receivers.

Displays a sense of timing

Either by coincidence or by careful cherry-picking of your example review, the major points here are nearly all radically at odds with both what we've seen at the pro level and with what other evaluators had to say in their college reviews

-------------------------------------------------


https://www.nfl.com/prospects/justin-fi ... 3127e80752

Below-average feel for edge pressure
Missed open blitz beaters in the middle of the field
Gradual operation time prevents expedited release
Needs to release ball earlier on anticipatory throws
Needs to improve eye manipulation as a pro
Stagnant eyes invite coverage to the passing party


https://walterfootball.com/scoutingrepo ... fields.php

Weaknesses:
Poor pocket awareness
Can get rattled by the pass rush
Can freeze when seeing the blitz
Must get better at passing in the face of the rush
Blitz recognition needs work
Needs to check the ball down more
Field vision needs development
Needs to get quicker working through progressions

https://www.nfldraftbuzz.com/Player/Jus ... -OhioState
Has a tendency to hold onto the ball too long and stare down receivers
Not consistent at finding the second and third options once the top read is unavailable

https://www.si.com/nfl/patriots/gm-repo ... ing-report
Slow reader of the field
Occasionally panicked under pressure
Needs to work on pre-snap reads, especially with identifying blitzes

ineffectiveness in the mental aspect of the game
generally only had a single read on a play and rarely had to make full-field reads
had a lot of trouble picking up blitzes and calling the correct checks at the line

-------------------------------------------------

If you go with the majority opinion (which has been proven correct, so kinda hard to argue), then those areas (anticipation, vision, calm/disciplined in the pocket, keeping eyes downfield, progress through progressions) aren't at all similar to Maye.
We’re comparing their college careers and in college Fields was content to stay in the pocket. His most famous highlight is him climbing the pocket and delivering a strike in the CFB.

But he also had issues where his mechanics breakdown and his lack of awareness leads him into running sacks, and forces bad throws that had no chance.

You’re allowing what he’s done in the pros to color your assessment. If you just compare their college careers, you wouldn’t say Maye is definitely better or that he does things significantly better.

And the Bears are so ineptly run that they may have ruined Fields. They wanted to redshirt him so gave Dalton all of the 1st team rips at camp and had him run the scout team until Dalton got hurt and then threw him in the Dalton offense with the worst game plan in history (why double team or even chip Myles Garrett?) Then they hired neophytes to work with him and tore down the roster, and the neophytes had him change his footwork while learning a new offense.

And if you watch the Pittsburgh game his rookie year his movement in the pocket and confidence throwing in the middle of the field was probably the best it’s been in the NFL.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Pretty accurate..the question can he be the Fields we drafted after all that crap.. I would rather the Bears trade down to build this team so whoever is QB has a decent chance to succeed..not all QBs must be "generational talent" to get us to where this team needs to be..Playoffs and better…
However it's done..
I'm glad I just have to live with the decisions, rather than make them…
We are just the Bozos on this bus...
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

docc wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:39 am Pretty accurate..the question can he be the Fields we drafted after all that crap.. I would rather the Bears trade down to build this team so whoever is QB has a decent chance to succeed..not all QBs must be "generational talent" to get us to where this team needs to be..Playoffs and better…
However it's done..
I'm glad I just have to live with the decisions, rather than make them…
We are just the Bozos on this bus...
It's not like he's walking into Chernobyl here - there is talent on Offense and that's only likely to increase rather than decrease this offseason regardless of what we do at QB
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 3692
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 572 times
Been thanked: 529 times

docc wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:39 am Pretty accurate..the question can he be the Fields we drafted after all that crap.. I would rather the Bears trade down to build this team so whoever is QB has a decent chance to succeed..not all QBs must be "generational talent" to get us to where this team needs to be..Playoffs and better…
However it's done..
I'm glad I just have to live with the decisions, rather than make them…
We are just the Bozos on this bus...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6645
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 636 times

TheWorldBreaker wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 8:47 pm
Moriarty wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 9:53 am

Well, it is somewhat similar if you go by that particular review. But don't you have trouble not convulsing with laughter at some of their evaulations?



Let's take out all things that everyone has no trouble agreeing with - strong arm, athletic & elusive, makes plays off-schedule, tough.
That leaves




Either by coincidence or by careful cherry-picking of your example review, the major points here are nearly all radically at odds with both what we've seen at the pro level and with what other evaluators had to say in their college reviews

-------------------------------------------------


https://www.nfl.com/prospects/justin-fi ... 3127e80752






https://walterfootball.com/scoutingrepo ... fields.php





https://www.nfldraftbuzz.com/Player/Jus ... -OhioState



https://www.si.com/nfl/patriots/gm-repo ... ing-report




-------------------------------------------------

If you go with the majority opinion (which has been proven correct, so kinda hard to argue), then those areas (anticipation, vision, calm/disciplined in the pocket, keeping eyes downfield, progress through progressions) aren't at all similar to Maye.
You’re allowing what he’s done in the pros to color your assessment. If you just compare their college careers, you wouldn’t say Maye is definitely better or that he does things significantly better.
Yes, I would.
And so would all the serious reviewers I could find, except for the 1 you picked.
I quoted you examples of things they said Fields was bad at and Maye is good (or at least ordinary) at.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
bearsoldier
Assistant Coach
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:36 am
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 89 times

I actually like Maye more than California Caleb... That said, neither will be the next QB for the Bears... I do not have any doubt, JF1 is going to remain our QB for 2024.
“Losers quit when they’re tired. Winners quit when they’ve won.” - Mike Ditka
Magilla_Gorilla
Journeyman
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 70 times

If Caleb Williams didn’t exist I’d be very interested in Drake Maye. As it is Caleb does exist and Maye is in tier II for me.

If we are drafting a QB, it’s Caleb or bust for me. I’ve been enamored with that kid since he was a true freshman who came in after halftime against Texas and won the game.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5329
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 544 times
Been thanked: 439 times

God, the Caleb hype machine is really getting into high gear. But I really think the Bears need to consider Maye. Statistically, here's one to consider: these 2 first round QBs, one is expected to fail or live up to expectations. Which will it be?
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
TheWorldBreaker
MVP
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:57 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Moriarty wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 7:02 pm
TheWorldBreaker wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 8:47 pm

You’re allowing what he’s done in the pros to color your assessment. If you just compare their college careers, you wouldn’t say Maye is definitely better or that he does things significantly better.
Yes, I would.
And so would all the serious reviewers I could find, except for the 1 you picked.
I quoted you examples of things they said Fields was bad at and Maye is good (or at least ordinary) at.
I just used the site you initially used for your Drake Maye scouting report.

Drake Maye has prototypical QB size but is not the number one prospect over a little bit of an undersized QB because he has issues.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

TheWorldBreaker wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:33 pm
Moriarty wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 7:02 pm

Yes, I would.
And so would all the serious reviewers I could find, except for the 1 you picked.
I quoted you examples of things they said Fields was bad at and Maye is good (or at least ordinary) at.
I just used the site you initially used for your Drake Maye scouting report.

Drake Maye has prototypical QB size but is not the number one prospect over a little bit of an undersized QB because he has issues.
This is not really how that works ... It's not like they are saying Maye is bad or that Caleb isn't one of the highest rated prospects to come out at QB in years

Also wouldn't that speak to just what teams thought on Fields coming out? In terms of size, arm strength, and speed - He's pretty much the blueprint of what you'd want in those regards. Roughly 1/3 of the League that needed QBs decided not to pick him - Including multiple teams that took different QBs

Maybe they are all idiots - but presumably there was at least SOME issue they worried about in his game
User avatar
BearsFanInMN
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:58 pm
Location: Phoenix/Tempe
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 39 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:28 am
How is our biggest weakness QB?

Is JF1 a bigger problem than Whitehair snapping the ball into the stands? DJ Moore being the only good WR? Only having one pass rusher on the roster?

No, he’s not.

We aren’t one player away from fixing this team. We’re 3 / 4 / 5 players away.

That’s why I don’t care about replacing the QB. It’s nowhere near our biggest problem.
This is why I could be put in the holdout camp. I see us needing:
C
LT - Braxton is a great story and would be a wonderful swing tackle but heard it said his metrics would be horrible if he didn't have a mobile QB to escape all the people who beat Braxton
Healthy G (maybe 2)
WR 2
WR 3
TE 2
DE
S
3T

D looked good with Sweat and we had a one game above .500 record after week 4, but we beat a lot of bad teams and QBs which you should do with a last place schedule. Two years we have one good win vs Detroit. Think people thinking we're closer than we are. We have 2 firsts and a 3rd to fill those holes. One first going to QB and one to WR helps but doesn't fix it all. Yeah we have cap and resetting the QB $ helps down the road, but how many really good players (and just getting into prime) make it to FA vs getting tagged.

You tell me we get Chase Young on a higher $ Yingakwe 1 year deal, Winfield, and Biadasz then can trade Fields for $0.75 on the dollar or more then I'm down, but just skeptical.

To the OP, I think Maye is better and more proven than Trubisky but still have my doubts.
MOTML League: Eskimo Brothers
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

BearsFanInMN wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:40 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:28 am
How is our biggest weakness QB?

Is JF1 a bigger problem than Whitehair snapping the ball into the stands? DJ Moore being the only good WR? Only having one pass rusher on the roster?

No, he’s not.

We aren’t one player away from fixing this team. We’re 3 / 4 / 5 players away.

That’s why I don’t care about replacing the QB. It’s nowhere near our biggest problem.
This is why I could be put in the holdout camp. I see us needing:
C
LT - Braxton is a great story and would be a wonderful swing tackle but heard it said his metrics would be horrible if he didn't have a mobile QB to escape all the people who beat Braxton
Healthy G (maybe 2)
WR 2
WR 3
TE 2
DE
S
3T

D looked good with Sweat and we had a one game above .500 record after week 4, but we beat a lot of bad teams and QBs which you should do with a last place schedule. Two years we have one good win vs Detroit. Think people thinking we're closer than we are. We have 2 firsts and a 3rd to fill those holes. One first going to QB and one to WR helps but doesn't fix it all. Yeah we have cap and resetting the QB $ helps down the road, but how many really good players (and just getting into prime) make it to FA vs getting tagged.

You tell me we get Chase Young on a higher $ Yingakwe 1 year deal, Winfield, and Biadasz then can trade Fields for $0.75 on the dollar or more then I'm down, but just skeptical.

To the OP, I think Maye is better and more proven than Trubisky but still have my doubts.
We have a team that is really close to being very good.

If you annualize our record after the Montez Sweat trade we are a playoff team.

Changing out the QB, especially when the existing QB is not a liability, runs the risk of causing a regression because the rookie could either be a bust or need a couple years to be effective.

What we need to do now is fill in the gaps: C, WR2, DE2, and a S to replace EJax so we can have a neutral cap impact of paying JJ.

We have no second round pick.

Therefore I just see a trade down, even when able to take MHJ at 1, is easily the best path forward.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
bearfan234
Rookie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2023 2:50 am
Been thanked: 4 times

I'll be honest, I probably only have 10% of reviewing these quarterbacks properly, but with growing confidence and decades of fandom experience, this 2024 QB draft prospect class, as a whole, so impressive, they checkmark all the boxes.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7553
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 528 times

BearsFanInMN wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:40 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:28 am
How is our biggest weakness QB?

Is JF1 a bigger problem than Whitehair snapping the ball into the stands? DJ Moore being the only good WR? Only having one pass rusher on the roster?

No, he’s not.

We aren’t one player away from fixing this team. We’re 3 / 4 / 5 players away.

That’s why I don’t care about replacing the QB. It’s nowhere near our biggest problem.
This is why I could be put in the holdout camp. I see us needing:
C
LT - Braxton is a great story and would be a wonderful swing tackle but heard it said his metrics would be horrible if he didn't have a mobile QB to escape all the people who beat Braxton
Healthy G (maybe 2)
WR 2
WR 3
TE 2
DE
S
3T

D looked good with Sweat and we had a one game above .500 record after week 4, but we beat a lot of bad teams and QBs which you should do with a last place schedule. Two years we have one good win vs Detroit. Think people thinking we're closer than we are. We have 2 firsts and a 3rd to fill those holes. One first going to QB and one to WR helps but doesn't fix it all. Yeah we have cap and resetting the QB $ helps down the road, but how many really good players (and just getting into prime) make it to FA vs getting tagged.

You tell me we get Chase Young on a higher $ Yingakwe 1 year deal, Winfield, and Biadasz then can trade Fields for $0.75 on the dollar or more then I'm down, but just skeptical.

To the OP, I think Maye is better and more proven than Trubisky but still have my doubts.
I don't think any of the metrics dislike Braxton at all

ESPN has him as a Top 10 Tackle for both Pass Block Win Rate and Run Block Win Rate IIRC
Post Reply